Breaking! Federal Court Finds California Magazine Ban Violates the Second Amendment

nraila.org ^ | March 29, 2019

[walkingdead]

More for those who do not have time to read the decision.

In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court provided a simple Second Amendment test in crystal clear language. It is a test that anyone can understand. The right to keep and bear arms is a right enjoyed by law-abiding citizens to have arms that are not unusual “in common use” “for lawful purposes like self-defense.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624 (2008); Heller v. District of Columbia (“Heller II”), 670 F.3d 1244, 1271 (2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (“In my view, Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.”). It is a hardware test. Is the firearm hardware commonly owned? Is the hardware commonly owned by law-abiding citizens? Is the hardware owned by those citizens for lawful purposes? If the answers are “yes,” the test is over. The hardware is protected.

[PROCON]

Indeed, an excellent opinion.

14 Regardless of current popularity, neither a legislature nor voters may trench on constitutional rights.

This particular clause is very relevant as my home state of Washington just enacted an initiative into law where my fellow citizens voted to usurp several of my 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights.

Very promising indeed.

[PROCON]

Neither can the government response to a few mad men with guns and ammunition be a law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves into criminals. Yet, this is the effect of California’s large-capacity magazine law.

Justice Scalia would be proud!

[Beagle8U]

My Dad hunted deer with a 8mm Mauser that he brought back from WW2.

It was kinda overkill , but he never had to shoot one twice.

[walkingdead]

Probably last one for tonight, I cannot believe this is in th opinion and honestly cannot believe we have a judge like this in CA

vi. irony
Perhaps the irony of § 32310 escapes notice. The reason for the adoption of the Second Amendment was to protect the citizens of the new nation from the power of an oppressive state. The anti-federalists were worried about the risk of oppression by a standing army. The colonies had witnessed the standing army of England marching through Lexington to Concord, Massachusetts, on a mission to seize the arms and gunpowder of the militia and the Minutemen—an attack that ignited the Revolutionary war. With Colonists still hurting from the wounds of war, the Second Amendment guaranteed the rights of new American citizens to protect themselves from oppressors foreign and domestic. So, now it is ironic that the State whittles away at the right of its citizens to defend themselves from the possible oppression of their State.

[walkingdead]

Hea I hear Washington state is getting pretty bad too. Hopefully the gun grabbers have reached too far and all this will come crumbling down.

In reading the opinion the state literally used news articles as its evidence of why the legislation was needed. No police reports, no crime stats nothing. They actually used a mother jones study. The judge actually sounds pissed at CA and at any judges in the past that have let this kind of stuff by.

[TMN78247]

Two of my FAVORITE firearms are an English P14 from WWI, in .303 British & the 98 Mauser from the same era in 8x57mm.

Either is sufficient medicine for Western hemisphere game, with the exception of the BIGGEST bears.

Yours, TMN78247

[Beagle8U]

Loaded to the German standards the 8MM Mauser is quite a step up from the .303, and plenty powerful enough for the great bears.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks PROCON.

• California Gun Parts Dealer, Patriot Armory, Sued by New Jersey AG, for Legal Sales
• Wealthy 'NIMBY' libs in Pelosi's SF district raise $60G to fight center for city's homeless
• Midwestern mayor Buttigieg wows progressive Dems in San Francisco

[Silentgypsy]

Praise the Lord!

[Silentgypsy]

The article stated that Judge Benitez’ ruling was well-reasoned and comprehensive, so that it has an optimal chance of standing.

[Silentgypsy]

If somebody could get his child-adoption irregularities resolved, maybe the blackmailing efforts wouldn’t be effective.

[SkyPilot]

I give it a slightly better than 50% chance of being upheld at the Ninth Circuit.

Hi Mark.

I don't see the 9th Circus upholding a pro-Second Amendment ruling.

It's akin to believing the 9th Circus would uphold a pro-life ruling.

Not going to happen.

The question is, when the 9th strikes this ruling down, will the cowardly Supreme Court actually take a 2nd Amendment case?

The court did agree to hear a case in January filed by the New York Rifle & Pistol Association - the first time in 8 years that they actually permitted one on the 2nd Amendment.

A year ago, Justice Thomas finally spoke out:

Thomas, conservatives impatient at Supreme Court's inaction on 2nd Amendment

But here is what the public really does not understand. The Supreme Court doesn't hear cases, and then the justices retreat to their chambers, think about the Constitution and the law, and come back have a straight vote.

Oh no.

The make deals in back rooms. They legislate. They act like a Super Government. The make decisions based on selfish desires and for raw power.

The inside story of how John Roberts negotiated to save Obamacare

Roberts' moves behind the scenes were as extraordinary as his ruling. He changed course multiple times. He was part of the majority of justices who initially voted in a private conference to strike down the individual insurance mandate -- the heart of the law -- but he also voted to uphold an expansion of Medicaid for people near the poverty line. Two months later, Roberts had shifted on both......After an unusual three full days of oral arguments in late March 2012 (a typical case gets one hour on one day), the nine justices gathered in a private conference room off the chief's chambers to cast initial votes. They were alone, with no law clerks or administrative staff......Roberts did not want the entire law to fall......Soon after, Roberts began trying to persuade Kennedy to find that the unconstitutional insurance requirement could be severed from the rest of the law. But Kennedy -- often a swing vote on high-profile cases -- was firm in his position. He was puzzled, and then put off, by Roberts' view that the ACA provisions could be severed.....Later in April, Roberts tried another path. He began exploring whether, as the Obama administration had argued, the individual mandate could be upheld as a tax. (CBS's Jan Crawford reported earlier on Roberts' reversal on the mandate, but the full story of Roberts' switch, including on Medicaid expansion, and the changed votes of two liberal justices is detailed now for the first time.) The chief justice then turned to Breyer and Kagan, the liberals most likely to work with him on contentious issues, to see if they could find common ground.....Scalia and the other conservatives were livid at the development. Scalia believed the taxing-power possibility had never truly been discussed in court, calling it a "fly-by-night briefing." Kennedy thought Roberts had presented his interpretation as "judicial modesty," when it amounted instead "to a vast judicial overreaching."

[New Jersey Realist]

GREAT!!!!! Get it to the SCOTUS and overturn every state law that “infringes” on our rights.

[Redleg Duke]

Thugs and illegal aliens hardest hit!

[marktwain]

I don’t see the 9th Circus upholding a pro-Second Amendment ruling.

---

I generally agree. I only gave it a slightly better than a 50% chance because President Trump has been appointing some replacements for the Ninth Circuit. They may be on the en banc panel.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Glad the got the right conclusion, but if they only used the CORRECT path to get there...

Don't infringe me bro.

[Sirius Lee]

Thank you Judge Benitez for my new tagline.

[RandallFlagg]

Fingers crossed!
I still hope this goes to SCOTUS, though. Magazine bans wiped out nationwide. There’s no reason for them.

[itsahoot]

Thank you, thank you. This affects me here in California.

It will make as much difference to you as illegal immigration laws do. None.